Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoted to You (song)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy keep, well the article didn't say it charted for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Devoted to You (song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources for the song. Several artists recorded it but nobody ever released it as a single, so a redirect is out of the question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Everly Brothers article, this song was released as the B-side to Bird Dog, which normally doesn't matter, but it charted in it's own right, at #10 in the US, #25 in Australia, and #1 in Canada. (Also, #7 on the US country chart and #2(!) on the R&B chart. Also, I hate arguments like the one I'm about to make, but WP:NSONGS says songs "that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.", so with this song being covered by the Everlys, The Beach Boys, James Taylor and Carly Simon, Sandy Posey... I think that it qualifies as a keep. (Also, the Taylor/Simon version charted, too, at #36 on the charts. And on the country and A/C charts too.) Giant, hopefully speedy keep. MookieZ (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever released it as a single??? The song was released by the Everly Brothers, as Cadence 1350. The song charted, as stated by Mookie above, in THREE different countries, two of them in the top 10. All of Mookie's comments are relevant here and the request for deletion is a big mistake. I concur with Mookie's "Giant, hopefully speedy keep." -- BRG (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This information probably should have been put into the article; perhaps its absence may have prompted the original failure to recognize the song's notability. I have added it. -- BRG (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.